WSP09797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ,. ~I . 'o'J~iJ...~',' ~ ... J '"' -' J However, over the past six years only two applications for a right to conserved waters have been received by the Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD) , and neither have been approved. Last spring, WRQ Director Martha Paqel test~ied that the program did not work because stringent requirements "contributed to the reluctance by irrigators to take advantage of the conservation program." Under the 1987 act, 75% of any "conserved water" could be granted to the conserving water rightholder as a new right with a priority set at one minute alter the original right The remaining 25% was dedicated the state to augment instream flows. The WRC could increase or decrease these percentages through rulemaking. The first hurdle was the 1987 law's strict definition of "conserved water" as only that which otherwise would be "consumed or irretrievably lost." Second, the law required that conservation projects cause "no injury" to other users. Third, project applicants could not know upfront how much of the conserved water they might receive, and therefore could not wisely invest in costly capital improvements. Lastly, the process of proving water was conserved could take several years. Last year, WRD staff drafted proposed legislative changes which were discussed with various interests and introduced as H.B. 2155-A. H.B. 2155-A redefines "conservation" to be a reduction in the amount of water "diverted to satisfy an existing beneficial use," and redefines "conserved water" as that amount "measured as the difference between: (a) the smaller of the amount stated on the water right or the maximum amount of water that can be diverted using the existing facilities; and (b) the amount of water needed alter implementation of conservation measures to meet the beneficial use under the water right cert~icate." The law declares it to be state policy to: aggressively promote conservation; encourage the highest and best use of water by allowing the sale or lease of the riqht to the use of conserved water; and "encourage local cooperation and coordination in development of conservation proposals to provide incentives for increased efficiency and to improve stream flows." H.B. 2155-A adds that any person or group of persons holding one or more water right cert~icates may submit a conservation proposal. Proposals need only describe existing diversion facilities and estimate the amount of water that can be diverted, as well as the amount of water that would be needed under existing rights alter implementation of conservation measures and the proposed use of the conserved water. The Water Resources Commission will give notice of receipt of proposals in accordance with existing law, and then allocate the conserved waters and approve mod~ication of water rights. The new law removes the commission's discretion to change the allocation formula, and the amount of conserved water to be allocated to the user would be determined in advance, rather than after the project was completed. Under the 1987 law, the commission was required to find that a proposed conservation measure was feasible, would produce conserved water, could be affected without injury to existing water rights, or would adequately mitigate any effects on other water users, and would not adversely affect the public interest. Under the new law, th~commission must only determine "the quantity of conserved water, ~ any, required to mitigate the effects on other water rights." Then the law states, "The commission shall allocate 25% of the remaining conserved water to the state and 75% to the applicant, unless the applicant proposes a higher allocation to the state or more than 25% of the funds used to finance the conservation measures come from...public funds," in which case water will be allocated to the applicant in proportion to the percentage of other funds used to finance the conservation measures. However, in no event is that applicant to receive less than 25% of the remaining conserved water unless the applicant proposes a higher allocation to the state. Finally, the Water Resources Commission is to determine whether or not the water allocated to the state is necessary to support instream flow purposes. If so, the water is to be converted to an instream water right with a priority one minute following the original right Otherwise, the water reverts to the public for appropriation by the next user in priority. The commission must now adopt rules and standards necessary to carry out the revised program. Enactment of H.B. 2155-A is expected to further encourage conservation by removing unworkable requirements. The Water Resources Commission adopted a statewide water conservation policy in 1990. It is in the process of adopting and implementing rules requiring agricuitural and municipal water users and suppliers to prepare plans for more efficient water use. The WESlERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representalives appointed by the Governors of member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Haw3Jl, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas. Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and ~'JCiate member state Oklahoma.